The Instigator
Wallstreetatheist
Pro (for)
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Con (against)

Women Love Men Who are Generally Attractive more than Specifically Attractive

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Wallstreetatheist has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2019 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 512 times Debate No: 121066
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Wallstreetatheist

Pro

Resolution:
Women are more attracted to men who have adopted a holistic dating strategy than men who are excellent at one specific thing.


Rules:
(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, Coherent fashion.
(4) No semantics, Trolling, Or lawyering.

Rounds:
(1) Acceptance
(2) Main Argument
(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument. No new arguments.
(4) Evaluation of main arguments and rebuttals + voting issues (one paragraph). No new arguments.

Definitions:
Holistic - focused on the sum total of the person; including physical, Mental, Emotional and other characteristics of the individual and his life

Burden of Proof:
I have the burden of proof.

By accepting this debate you accept the rules, Rounds, Definitions, And BOP.
WrickItRalph

Con

My sources have to go in the comment section to prevent glitching. So that rule is gone.

Semantics are good thing. That rule is gone. Don't know what lawyering is, But if it's you telling me I can't make good arguments, That's out the window too.

My rule: No making rules that restrict a debaters access to sound arguments.

If any rule you make does not comply with this rule, It's thrown out. I'm all for good conduct, But goal tending is not okay. I'm not accusing your of goal tending, I'm just forewarning you.

I reject the no new arguments because a rebuttal may lead to a new argument. Every point made, Including rebuttals are arguments.

I am clear that you have the burden of proof. That means I don't have to make any direct claims, But rather post counterpoints to your claim.

Lets do this.
Debate Round No. 1
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

Evolutionary Argument
“Choosing a mate is a complex task, And so we do not expect to find simple answers to what women want. ” -David Buss, Evolutionary Psychology, 2012

Men provide food, Find and create shelter, Defend territory, And protect children. They tutor children in sports, Hunting, Fishing, Hierarchy negotiation, Friendship, And social influence. They transfer status, Aiding offspring in forming social alliances later in life. Women look for behavioral, Physical, And material cues from a man to determine if he can meet these criteria. (David Buss, Evolutionary Psychology, 2012).

Women’s evolved mate preference (EMP) is used to select mates who are attractive in general in order to solve several adaptive problems (AP) in survival and in the replication of their genes (Smuts, 1995). The more effectively a man solves each adaptive problem, The more a women will prefer him as a mate:


    • AP1 - Selecting a mate able to invest. EMP - ambitiousness and industriousness, Financial prospects, Social status, Older age; size, Strength, And athletic ability

    • AP2 - Selecting a mate who is willing to invest. EMP - Dependability and stability, Love and commitment cues, Positive interactions with children

    • AP3 - Selecting a mate who is able to physically protect her and her children. EMP - Size (muscularity and height), Bravery, Athletic ability.

    • AP4 - Selecting a mate who will show good parenting skills. EMP - Dependability, Emotional stability, Kindness, Positive interactions with children

    • AP5 - Selecting a mate who is compatible. EMP - similar values, Similar ages, Similar personalities

    • AP6 - Selecting a mate who is healthy. EMP - Physical attractiveness, Symmetry, Health, Masculinity, Good immune system


A mate who is able and willing to invest in a woman and her children (a hardworking man with high social status) yet is unable to protect her or her children (weak, Small, Timid, And unathletic) would be seen as unattractive, Because he does not solve an adaptive problem in a woman’s mating strategy. In plain English: what good is a man providing resources for a woman or her children if he can’t protect them against getting killed by a bear?

Scientific Argument
Why women have sex is complex and multifaceted, Containing varying combinations of motivations. We identified 237 distinct sexual motivations that covered an astonishing variety of psychological nuance. (Cindy Meston, David Buss, 2009)
In the book Why Women Have Sex by sexual psychophysiologist Cindy Meston and evolutionary psychologist David Buss, They mention many attraction triggers in women backed up by over 1000 scientific studies.

Women’s Sexual Attraction and Romantic Attraction for Men is Comprised of Many Factors:
Smell: A man’s smell is a sign of his immune functioning from his MHC gene. The more different the MHC gene, The more a woman’s sexual responsiveness to her partner increased. (Santos, 2005) Women are a lot more sensitive to bad odors than men [https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693767/]

Repeated Contact
(up to a point): Women are more attracted to a man as exposures increase. (Moreland, Beach, Exposure effect in the classroom, 1992)


Height
: associated with higher social status, More physical protection, And health. (Sexual Strategies Theory, Buss, 1993)


Muscularity
: Women desire strong, Muscular, Athletic men for long-term mating as well as sexual liaisons. (Sexual Strategies Theory, Buss, 1993)


Deep Voice
: Women are more attracted to men with deeper voices both for long-term mating and short-term sexual encounters. (Dominance and Sexual Dimorphism in Human Voice Pitch, Puts, 2006)


Movement
: How a man moves, Walks, And dances offer cues as to his motor control, Social dominance, And status. (Attraction to Masculinity, Provost, 2008)


Sense of Humor
: Produces positive emotions in women and can show intelligence trait as well.


Self-Confidence
: Makes a woman feel like she can trust a man’s guidance, And also shows strong mental health.


Fame
: Fame is exclusive and scarce, But the main things are that it comes packaged with social status and resources. (Buss, 2009)


Pre-Selection
: Women found men most attractive when they were surrounded by other women, Because women who mate with men who radiate sex appeal to other women are more likely to give birth to sons who do the same, Perpetuating a woman’s genes. (Sexy-Sons Hypothesis, Fisher, 1930)


Similarity
: women are attracted to men who share similar attitudes and beliefs, Because it produces more positive emotions and mutual understanding.


As a bonus, Here are some of the main traits from Mate by Tucker Max and evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller:

1. Sense of Humor

2. Intelligence

3. Altruism

4. Social Status

5. Mindfulness

6. Older Men

7. Limited Availability

8. Having a Dog

9. Primal Traits

10. Happiness

11. Will-Power

12. Muscular, Healthy Body

13. Assertiveness

14. Wealth

15. Leadership


Women are not attracted to men who are excellent at one specific thing.


Autistic Savants



    • Autistic Savants are people who have significant mental disabilities but demonstrate an extraordinary, Specific ability: e. G. Rapid calculation, Artistic ability, Map making, Or musical ability. Usually just one special skill is present.

    • Are they attractive to women? No. Many autistic characteristics go against typical dating norms, Running counter to mainstream conceptions of how to express affection and love. People with autism are rarely considered in romantic contexts.

    • Basic, Non-sexual touching is uncomfortable. Big smiles can be frightening and eye contact that darts back and forth often makes other people uncomfortable. Autistic people don't understand flirting and it seems complex and nonsensical. They have difficulty in processing social cues from others as well.


Why examples of professional athletes, Actors, And musicians fail


    • Yes, These are examples of men who have an extraordinary ability in one field and yes, They are attractive to women, But notice how they are also attractive in general. At a high level these people all have high industriousness, Social acuity in making deals to improve their careers, And usually sought after by women creating more competition for them.

    • Athlete: good physical fitness and health, Strength for protecting her and offspring, Industriousness and financial prospects for providing resources, Higher testosterone produces a lower voice which is more sexually arousing, Good body. He fulfills many if not all EMP’s of women.

    • Actor: Excellent grooming, Hygiene, Appearance, Facial symmetry. High social status and ability to socialize and empathize. Wealth, Lifestyle of freedom and good emotions. He fulfills many if not all EMP’s of women.

    • Musicians: Intelligence, Motor skills for playing instruments, Fame (social status), Wealth, Pre-selection being surrounded by women, Often good looking and physically fit. He fulfills many if not all EMP’s of women.

    • These people who are excellent at one thing are also generally attractive as well and set up their lives to maximize the women in them.


Weakness in one or several areas can act as a killswitch for attraction, For example:

Bad smell: How a man smells is critical. A man’s bad breath or bad body odor can be a killswitch for sexual attraction in women. (Buss, Meston, 2009)


Anger Issues: If a man is generally attractive, But extremely horrible with his temper, Women's self-preservation kicks in as she becomes unattracted
WrickItRalph

Con

Okay. So your argument is a sham. No better way to put it.

You say that woman favor men who adopt a holistic dating strategy. But all the factors you name have nothing to do with strategy, They're physical attributes. So now you've moved the goalpost. Then you make a false comparison and say that specifically skilled people like athletes, Musicians, Etc. Also fall into the category of generally attractive. But it's not a fair comparison. You're comparing inherent qualities with a skill. That is not what your argument is suppose to be. You are suppose to be comparing a holistic strategy to a singular one. That means all of those attributes you mentioned are non sequiturs to the argument.

So now you got to pick a boat to be in. If you're arguing for physical attributes, Then you're not allowed to use strategies, If you pick strategies, You are not allowed to pick attributes.

Furthermore, Everything you've said up until now are merely baseless assertions. Even if they are quotes, That just makes them somebody else's opinions. I see no hard data to support what you're saying. Unless you can give me hard data to back it up, Then you really don't have sources, You just have more opinions.

Who told you that autistic people can't get dates? I have no data for this, But that has not been my experience. I know two autistic people who had girlfriends longer than me for a while. I'm not really arguing this point, Because it's a non sequitur to the rest of the debate, But I just wanted to bring that up as a side note.

Your killswitch examples are not good. Your scenario only drives the woman away because it's a "bad smell" But what about a neutral smell? What a about being indifferent instead of angry? Those guys could not have a holistic set of attributes and still get dates just as easily, So this blows your theory out of the water.

My main point is simple. There are factors that lead to how a woman chooses their mate. However, Since attraction is a subjective thing, It is not possible to know what "the big secret" is to dating. If science knew this secret, Everybody would be bumping and grinding right now.

Pro's points are mostly good, Except for the fact that pro states them as proven facts, When in fact, They are probabilistic assessment. Furthermore, Pro did not use proper comparison and therefore the structure of pro's methodology is flawed from the ground up and Pro will need to restructure Pro's argument or it is useless.

Your Floor.
Debate Round No. 2
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

Okay. So your argument is a sham. No better way to put it.
----->
This is a conduct point for Pro. Insults are not arguments.

You say that woman favor men who adopt a holistic dating strategy. But all the factors you name have nothing to do with strategy, They're physical attributes. So now you've moved the goalpost.

-----> As stated in the first round, holistic is defined as "focused on the sum total of the person; including physical, Mental, Emotional and other characteristics of the individual and his life. " So a holistic strategy would be a strategy that favors being generally attractive rather than being hyper attractive in one particular criterion while letting others be unattractive.

-----> Also stated in round one: "By accepting this debate you accept the rules, Rounds, Definitions, And BOP. " Your time to debate the definitions was before the debate, Not after it starts. . .

-----> Furthermore, Is Con trying to make the argument here that "They're all physical attributes"?
-----> Dependability, Emotional stability, Kindness, Positive interactions with children, Industriousness, And bravery are behaviors that offer behavioral cues to women.

How a man smells offers an olfactory, chemical cue to women.
Social status and leadership offer a social cues to women.
Mindfulness, Intelligence, Happiness, And will-power display mental cues to women.

-----> Those are not physical attributes and all are backed up by science in my arguments above. Add in physical attributes (symmetry, Muscularity, Height), Material cues (wealth displays), And auditory cues (deep voice) and were already up to seven different categories of attributes that women are attracted to and the more holistic the strategy is (the more generally attractive a man is in summation of these characteristics) the more attracted to him she will be, Because he solves several adapted problems of evolution.



Then you make a false comparison and say that specifically skilled people like athletes, Musicians, Etc. Also fall into the category of generally attractive. But it's not a fair comparison. You're comparing inherent qualities with a skill. That is not what your argument is suppose to be. You are suppose to be comparing a holistic strategy to a singular one. That means all of those attributes you mentioned are non sequiturs to the argument.

----> A faulty* comparison is defined as "Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, In order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is. " For example,

So now you got to pick a boat to be in. If you're arguing for physical attributes, Then you're not allowed to use strategies, If you pick strategies, You are not allowed to pick attributes.

-----> I always argued for the same thing: that a holistic strategy, That is one tha

Furthermore, Everything you've said up until now are merely baseless assertions. Even if they are quotes, That just makes them somebody else's opinions. I see no hard data to support what you're saying. Unless you can give me hard data to back it up, Then you really don't have sources, You just have more opinions.

-----> I cited 12 sources above that refer to scientific studies. If you count scientific books as sources then it's 14 sources.


Who told you that autistic people can't get dates? I have no data for this, But that has not been my experience. I know two autistic people who had girlfriends longer than me for a while. I'm not really arguing this point, Because it's a non sequitur to the rest of the debate, But I just wanted to bring that up as a side note.

-----> Let's not confuse my argument. My argument is that autistic savants, People who have autism but show extraodinary ability in one area such as musical ability (intelligence, Motor coordination) but lack in most other areas struggle in dating because they lack other attributes that are necessary in dating: social skills and reading social cues, Humor, Physical attractiveness, Leadership, Deep voice, Pre-selection, Muscularity, Positive interactions with children, Financial prospects, Etc. They are not generally attractive, And as such they are less desirable choices for women in the dating and mating context.

-----> "[Autism] involves multiple problems with language, Social relationnships, Emotional adjustment, Conceptualization, Hyperactivity, And learning. " (Communication Problems in Autism edited by Eric Schopler, Gary B. Mesibov)

-----> "Findings support the view that individuals with characteristics of autism and related conditions do not necessarily prefer aloneness, As once assumed, But rather experience increased levels of loneliness related to lack of social skill and understanding. "


Your killswitch examples are not good. Your scenario only drives the woman away because it's a "bad smell" But what about a neutral smell? What a about being indifferent instead of angry? Those guys could not have a holistic set of attributes and still get dates just as easily.

-----> The point is that lack of general attractiveness in certain areas can repulse women, Which is why a holistic strategy of improving areas of attractiveness undner one's control attracts women moreso than hyper-focusing on being attractive in one area.


My main point is simple. There are factors that lead to how a woman chooses their mate. However, Since attraction is a subjective thing, It is not possible to know what "the big secret" is to dating. If science knew this secret, Everybody would be bumping and grinding right now.

-----> Knowledge doesn't equal results. We know that the "secret" to losing weight is to consume fewer calories than you burn, Move around, And eat nutrient dense foods that support the hormonal function of your lymph glands. But that doesn't mean that everyone should be skinny now. Because it requires energy, Money, Time, And concentrated effort to unwire bad habits and establish good habits.

-----> What attracts one woman compared to the next will vary slightly, But there are many universal attraction triggers that women all respond to. In studies of muscularity, All women preferred the more muscular men and none preferred the skinnier/weaker men.
(Study: Cues of upper body strength account for most of the variance in men's bodily attractiveness, Aaron Sell, Aaron W. Lukazsweski and Michael Townsley)
All women preferred deeper voices for men in several studies.
In a study with 150 women, Scientists found that, "A man can move himself two points higher on the attractiveness scale we used if his salary increases by a factor of 10. "



Pro's points are mostly good,

Thanks.

Except for the fact that pro states them as proven facts, When in fact, They are probabilistic assessment.

Without addressing any specific point, This assertion falls flat. I don't have to demonstrate why they are facts.

But to be extra safe with this victory, I would like to point out that virtually all of science and all of human knowledge is only our current closest approximation of truth. So the more studies and metanalyses there are on a particular topic (e. G. Deeper voices being more attractive to heterosexual women) the more certain we can be that it is true.

So your argument is a sham. . . . TO . . . . Pro's points are mostly good

Looks like I won over Con as well ;)
WrickItRalph

Con

I insulted your argument, Not you. There is nothing wrong with that. I suggest you stop belly aching and debate.

You can define holistic anyway you want, It doesn't change what you're ultimately saying at the core of the issue. The fact is that you're trying to define physical attributes as a strategy. This is simply false. A strategy is a plan you come up with. Physical attributes are something you're born worth. You can't have it both ways. You're trying to make it sound like one can "strategize" to be more attractive. It doesn't work that way.

I made it very clear when I took that debate that I don't accept rules that restrict my ability to make arguments because they're not rules at all but simply you goaltending. The very act of setting contingencies in a debate like you did is fallacious. Debates already have structured rules and don't need your dishonest additions.

Okay, Before we go too far down this rabbit hole. All you've done is claim a bunch of attributes. You've made no effort to show how these attributes are more superior. You haven't shown how you can read the minds of every woman to know that your set of physical attributes is better. Woman like all kinds of weird things. The Burden of Proof is on you because I'm not claiming that any particular set of attributes are superior.

Nothing you've name is a strategy. You're just naming attributes that can't be helped. Like chemical cues. Btw, Mr. Vague. What chemicals? Which cues? How about you stop playing around with your ambiguous claims and say something specific for once instead of trying to shotgun the topic with a bunch of non sequiturs.

Only, The way you talk about this, It sounds like you read a dating book that gave you some "no fail strategy". As a happily married man. I'll tell you right now those books are dumb.

The truth is that a woman decides if she wants you within a few moments of meeting you and what you do after that literally doesn't matter as long as you don't do something profoundly stupid. That's how attraction works. This BS about holistic strategies completely ignores the fact that woman fall for men without knowing anything about them. My wife spoke to me because I was a smooth talker and she likes my butt. There's nothing holistic about that. It's all subjective and anyone who says they have "the strategy" is simply a liar.

your definition of a faulty comparison is also faulty.

Okay, So you're arguing for attributes but falsely calling them strategies. I'm cool with that as long as we're clear that you're just using words the way you want and not by their actual definitions.

You didn't give any good links to your data. You just dropped names. Without a hard study to point to, Your supposed sources are nothing more than some person's opinion just like your opinion.

Nice cherry pick. You left out the part at the end where I said your argument is useless. Just because you might have some good points doesn't mean anything. All of your points are non sequiturs, So it doesn't really matter how good they might seem.

Lets cut to the meat of this. You've named a bunch of attributes and falsely called them strategies. You've asserted that all of the attributes together are better than having one really good attribute. But you haven't shown any logical entailment here. You're going to have to do more than just "promise" me your system works. Where's the data? Where's the pile of woman you picked up with this argument? If holistic attributes are better, Then why did my ugly unbalanced self get married so easily? Your arguments simply don't add up.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@Wallstreetatheist.

You mean your definition
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 3 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Ku4nt3m, The definition of holistic is in round one of the debate.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Oh snap.
Posted by Ku4nt3m 3 years ago
Ku4nt3m
Ohhhh, So all the dirty tricks are on the table just to get a woman. . . D4mn. . . @wallstreetatheist, What kind of women have you crossed around, Dude? XDD
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
It's a fancy way of saying "uses every viable strategy together"
Posted by Ku4nt3m 3 years ago
Ku4nt3m
Wtf "holistic dating strategy" is supposed to mean? Lol
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.